New Relationship names

[Hitta]

INTj---Dual----ESFj
INTj---Relation of Mutalistic Teachings/Activity-----ISFp
INTj---Mirror---ENTp
INTj---Look alike---ESTj
INTj---Supervision-->ENFp
INTj<--Supervision---ESTp
INTj---Semi Duality---INFj
INTj---Relation of Benefit--->ISTp
INTj<--Relation of Benefit---INFp
INTj---Relation of Creative Understanding---ENFj
INTj---Quasi-identical---INTp
INTj---Contrary---ENTj
INTj---Relation of Acceptance---ISTj
INTj---Super-Ego---ISFj
INTj---Conflicting---ESFp

The names that are the same as the old names but use different type have slightly different meanings. The names dictate very similar meanings though. I will have descriptions later.

[Jarno]

I've made some remarks.

INTj---Dual----ESFj
INTj---Relation of Mutalistic Teachings/Activity-----ISFp TEACHINGS??
INTj---Mirror---ENTp
INTj---Look alike---ESTj ILLUSIONARY
INTj---Supervision-->ENFp
INTj<--Supervision---ESTp
INTj---Semi Duality---INFj LOOK A LIKE
INTj---Relation of Benefit--->ISTp
INTj<--Relation of Benefit---INFp
INTj---Relation of Creative Understanding---ENFj
INTj---Quasi-identical---INTp
INTj---Contrary---ENTj
INTj---Relation of Acceptance---ISTj
INTj---Super-Ego---ISFj
INTj---Conflicting---ESFp

[Creepy-bg]

what's the point? seems like your changing perfectly acceptable names to something barely even different just so you can say you've done something. The four relationship that are actually named something different aren't any more descriptive than the originals.

[Hitta]

I've made some remarks.

INTj---Dual----ESFj
INTj---Relation of Mutalistic Teachings/Activity-----ISFp TEACHINGS??
INTj---Mirror---ENTp
INTj---Look alike---ESTj ILLUSIONARY
INTj---Supervision-->ENFp
INTj<--Supervision---ESTp
INTj---Semi Duality---INFj LOOK A LIKE
INTj---Relation of Benefit--->ISTp
INTj<--Relation of Benefit---INFp
INTj---Relation of Creative Understanding---ENFj
INTj---Quasi-identical---INTp
INTj---Contrary---ENTj
INTj---Relation of Acceptance---ISTj
INTj---Super-Ego---ISFj
INTj---Conflicting---ESFp

INTj and ESTjs are look-alikes because they have the same base function and they actually have a similar appearance

The purpose of the supervision relationship in my opinion has been explained through my model... as the supervisor's dominant functions is the supervisee's main agenda.

The original look-alikes are actually my semi dualities because each of their dominant functions are the others dual seeking.

INTj and ISTjs don't understand each other but they accept the way each other are because of the creative functions being the others agenda.

Creative Understanding means that the types are liberal in similar ways.

And mutalistic teaching for the activity pair means that they are like each the supervisors and the supervisees for each other.

[Mea]

I've made some remarks.

INTj---Dual----ESFj
INTj---Relation of Mutalistic Teachings/Activity-----ISFp TEACHINGS??
INTj---Mirror---ENTp
INTj---Look alike---ESTj ILLUSIONARY
INTj---Supervision-->ENFp
INTj<--Supervision---ESTp
INTj---Semi Duality---INFj LOOK A LIKE
INTj---Relation of Benefit--->ISTp
INTj<--Relation of Benefit---INFp
INTj---Relation of Creative Understanding---ENFj
INTj---Quasi-identical---INTp
INTj---Contrary---ENTj
INTj---Relation of Acceptance---ISTj
INTj---Super-Ego---ISFj
INTj---Conflicting---ESFp

INTj and ESTjs are look-alikes because they have the same base function and they actually have a similar appearance

The purpose of the supervision relationship in my opinion has been explained through my model... as the supervisor's dominant functions is the supervisee's main agenda.

The original look-alikes are actually my semi dualities because each of their dominant functions are the others dual seeking.

INTj and ISTjs don't understand each other but they accept the way each other are because of the creative functions being the others agenda.

Creative Understanding means that the types are liberal in similar ways.

And mutalistic teaching for the activity pair means that they are like each the supervisors and the supervisees for each other.

Where the hell did you get that?? Are you talking MBTT??
INTjs and ESTjs do NOT have the same base function. It's (ESTj) and (INTj). How are they the same??

And the INTj's creative function is the ISTj's PoLR, and vice versa, not hidden agenda.

[Hitta]

I've made some remarks.

INTj---Dual----ESFj
INTj---Relation of Mutalistic Teachings/Activity-----ISFp TEACHINGS??
INTj---Mirror---ENTp
INTj---Look alike---ESTj ILLUSIONARY
INTj---Supervision-->ENFp
INTj<--Supervision---ESTp
INTj---Semi Duality---INFj LOOK A LIKE
INTj---Relation of Benefit--->ISTp
INTj<--Relation of Benefit---INFp
INTj---Relation of Creative Understanding---ENFj
INTj---Quasi-identical---INTp
INTj---Contrary---ENTj
INTj---Relation of Acceptance---ISTj
INTj---Super-Ego---ISFj
INTj---Conflicting---ESFp

INTj and ESTjs are look-alikes because they have the same base function and they actually have a similar appearance

The purpose of the supervision relationship in my opinion has been explained through my model... as the supervisor's dominant functions is the supervisee's main agenda.

The original look-alikes are actually my semi dualities because each of their dominant functions are the others dual seeking.

INTj and ISTjs don't understand each other but they accept the way each other are because of the creative functions being the others agenda.

Creative Understanding means that the types are liberal in similar ways.

And mutalistic teaching for the activity pair means that they are like each the supervisors and the supervisees for each other.

Where the hell did you get that?? Are you talking MBTT??
INTjs and ESTjs do NOT have the same base function. It's (ESTj) and (INTj). How are they the same??

And the INTj's creative function is the ISTj's PoLR, and vice versa, not hidden agenda.

[Mea]

I've made some remarks.

INTj---Dual----ESFj
INTj---Relation of Mutalistic Teachings/Activity-----ISFp TEACHINGS??
INTj---Mirror---ENTp
INTj---Look alike---ESTj ILLUSIONARY
INTj---Supervision-->ENFp
INTj<--Supervision---ESTp
INTj---Semi Duality---INFj LOOK A LIKE
INTj---Relation of Benefit--->ISTp
INTj<--Relation of Benefit---INFp
INTj---Relation of Creative Understanding---ENFj
INTj---Quasi-identical---INTp
INTj---Contrary---ENTj
INTj---Relation of Acceptance---ISTj
INTj---Super-Ego---ISFj
INTj---Conflicting---ESFp

INTj and ESTjs are look-alikes because they have the same base function and they actually have a similar appearance

The purpose of the supervision relationship in my opinion has been explained through my model... as the supervisor's dominant functions is the supervisee's main agenda.

The original look-alikes are actually my semi dualities because each of their dominant functions are the others dual seeking.

INTj and ISTjs don't understand each other but they accept the way each other are because of the creative functions being the others agenda.

Creative Understanding means that the types are liberal in similar ways.

And mutalistic teaching for the activity pair means that they are like each the supervisors and the supervisees for each other.

Where the hell did you get that?? Are you talking MBTT??
INTjs and ESTjs do NOT have the same base function. It's (ESTj) and (INTj). How are they the same??

And the INTj's creative function is the ISTj's PoLR, and vice versa, not hidden agenda.

Right. I remember that thread.

[Creepy-bg]

you're totally just creating a massive clusterfuck here Hitta. Make your own system, call it something different from Socionics and go post about it somewhere else. This whole renaming things using the same names (but changing who's in what relationship with who) is bullshit and it's not going to go anywhere past this thread because it would create hella confusion for people.

As FDG would say, CHRIST FUCK!

[Hitta]

the original relationships are wrong though, not saying mine are perfect.... but the point of mine where to show that they were somewhat mixed up. I see the static/dynamic dimension somewhat skewed too. I mean if you want to see that the dimensions are screwed up look at this description: implicative, if-then logic, logic of cause and effect, linear, chain, narrow-directed and tell me if it sounds dynamic or static. That function is completely different than what we think it is. Guarantee you there is something screwy with that dimension, and I'm trying to separate it like it supposed to be, but its very hard. -Ti and +Ti have different staticism and dynamism, all the other functions need to be split too, because saying that -Ti and +Ti are both static is just stupid because +Ti by definition is not static.

[Mea]

Umm. YOU think it's wrong. Don't state it as a fact.

It's not even socionics anymore.

[Creepy-bg]

exactly... instead of fucking us all up by trying to redefine and pull a switcheroo on what things mean, just go start your own personality system. What you're doing now is like sabatage or instigation or something.

[Hitta]

exactly... instead of fucking us all up by trying to redefine and pull a switcheroo on what things mean, just go start your own personality system. What you're doing now is like sabatage or instigation or something.

Ive got the perfect idea, lets just follow everything thats been accepted as being right and forget about new ideas, or things that make more sense than the original ideas. OH WAIT A MINUTE, thats exactly how society is right now. All I'm trying to do is redefine things to how they are. If you want to idiotically accept something without thinking about it, be my guest.

[Creepy-bg]

exactly... instead of fucking us all up by trying to redefine and pull a switcheroo on what things mean, just go start your own personality system. What you're doing now is like sabatage or instigation or something.

Ive got the perfect idea, lets just follow everything thats been accepted as being right and forget about new ideas, or things that make more sense than the original ideas. OH WAIT A MINUTE, thats exactly how society is right now. All I'm trying to do is redefine things to how they are. If you want to idiotically accept something without thinking about it, be my guest.

look, all I'm saying is that if your going to radically rework things go name it something else so that we don't have to screw around with the confusion. Is that too much to ask? I'm not against new ideas or whatever... I'm against people adding more confusion to Socionics like what you're trying to do would do. You may not see it, but that's how it is and what it's going to do.

[Elro]

Ive got the perfect idea, lets just follow everything thats been accepted as being right and forget about new ideas, or things that make more sense than the original ideas. OH WAIT A MINUTE, thats exactly how society is right now. All I'm trying to do is redefine things to how they are. If you want to idiotically accept something without thinking about it, be my guest.

I agree with your gist, but the point here I think is that what you are doing is different from classical Socionics, so it might be helpful if you labeled it as something else (New Socionics or something maybe) so as not to confuse people who are trying to learn classical Socionics to evaluate its merits. Maybe you're right in making your changes, but even if you are it wouldn't be good to confuse two incompatible systems, would it?

Edit: what he said.

[Creepy-bg]

Ive got the perfect idea, lets just follow everything thats been accepted as being right and forget about new ideas, or things that make more sense than the original ideas. OH WAIT A MINUTE, thats exactly how society is right now. All I'm trying to do is redefine things to how they are. If you want to idiotically accept something without thinking about it, be my guest.

I agree with your gist, but the point here I think is that what you are doing is different from classical Socionics, so it might be helpful if you labeled it as something else (New Socionics or something maybe) so as not to confuse people who are trying to learn classical Socionics to evaluate its merits. Maybe you're right in making your changes, but even if you are it wouldn't be good to confuse two incompatible systems, would it?

Edit: what he said.

trust me, you don't even want to get into the Hitta socionics/classical socionics compatibility thing... we had a nasty little edit war over that already on the wiki.

[Elro]

Two different systems, then.

[Hitta]

Two different systems, then.

The only thing that is different between my system and the original socionics system is the model A. The differences in the model A make changes everywhere. The changes I have made to model A make perfect sense to me, as it explains things that the other model A wouldn't explain. I mean... can you explain to me why an INTj likes to rebel through the original model A? Or why an ISFp is explosive and gets things done? Or why an INTp and ENTj lack initiative? Or why an INTj lacks will power? Or the similarity in the appearances of illusionary partners? Or just about every other thing that a person does that the original model A didn't explain functionally. Every action is determined functionally. It has to be. If a person is energetic(the +/- aspects define the type of energetic I'm referring to), it has to do with Se. A person has to be each +/- function in their personality arsenal, otherwise a person wouldn't be able to react in that area of expertise(or not react). A person has to have every function. I don't consider them two different systems because everything is based on the original socionics(any microscopic change could be used to create a new system, everything is different and the same with each other).

[Creepy-bg]

but why do you insist on calling yours "the true Model A" or whatever... you should call it Model H (for Hitta) instead to avoid confusion. That's the sensable thing to do.

[Hitta]

but why do you insist on calling yours "the true Model A" or whatever... you should call it Model H (for Hitta) instead to avoid confusion. That's the sensable thing to do.

Thats not a bad idea... but i still want my questions answered about those types, because it seems like no one can answer them for me